Kerala High Court
T.K.Rajendran vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 23283 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
T.K.RAJENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.E.A.KRISHNAN,
THODIPARAMBIL HOUSE,MULAVUKAD.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUMANNANTHARAYIL,THYKATTUSSERY
VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK.
SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SMT.M.D.BEENA
SRI.M.P.JAYAN
SRI.M.K.ROBIN RAJ
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT.M.SANTHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF P & PW, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN,
KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 COCHIN PORT TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 DEPUTY CHIEF ACOUNTANT (SR.II PENSION))
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,COCHIN PORT TRUST.
SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN, CGC
SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)
SRI.K.ANAND SR.
SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN CGC
SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, COCHIN PORT TRUST
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23283 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was enjoying family pension as ordered
through Ext.P1, consequent to the death of his father,
because he was unmarried and suffering from a disability.
However, when he subsequently married, the benefit of the
pension was denied to him, citing the reason that, as per
applicable Guidelines, a married person would not be eligible
to it. He says that this is illegal; and that, in any event, his
marriage has now been dissolved, as is evident from Ext.P6
and thus prays that the respondents be directed to reconsider
Ext.P4, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Smt.Latha Anand - learned standing counsel for the
Cochin Port Trust, in response to the afore submissions of
Smt.Santhy M. - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that when the Rules specify that a married son - even if he is
disabled, is not entitled to family pension, the petitioner
cannot assail Ext.P4. She, however, conceded that if Ext.P6
is true, then it may be a ground for the petitioner to seek a
review; but that even if the pension is to be restored, it could
be only with effect from that date and not earlier.
WP(C) NO. 23283 OF 2016
3. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival
submissions, I cannot find fault with the action of the
respondent - Cochin Port Trust, in having issued Ext.P4,
because the extant Rules provide that a married son or
daughter would not be entitled to the benefit of family
pension consequent to the death of their father, even if they
are disabled.
4. However, that said, since the petitioner now, prima
facie, proves that his marriage has been dissolved, certainly,
it is a matter which the Cochin Port Trust will have to take
into account, adverting to the said Rules and the mandate
therein.
5. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited
extent of directing the competent Authority of the Port Trust
to hear the petitioner and advert to Ext.P6; thus taking a
decision as to whether the family pension granted to him
through Ext.P1 can be restored at least from the date on
which his marriage was dissolved.
6. I, however, make it clear that I have not found
affirmatively in favour of the petitioner; but that this will be a
WP(C) NO. 23283 OF 2016
matter which will have to be decided dispassionately by the
competent Authority, taking note to all relevant and germane
aspects.
The afore exercise shall be completed as expeditiously
as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment; and the eligible amounts, if
any shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one
month thereafter.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 23283 OF 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23283/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING ORDER
NO.PEN1/2034FC/96 DATED 27.02.96
P2 TRUE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD DATED
08.10.2015
P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NON
EMPLOYMENT ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,CHERTHALA
TALUK DATED 22.09.2015
P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.PENSION/TKR/2034/FC/2016 DATED 04.06.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
ENCLOSURE REFUSING PENSION TO PETITIONER
P4(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 54(30)OF CCS PENSION
RULES 1972
P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.1/33/2012-P AND PW(E)DATED 16.01.2013
ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF
PEERSONNEL,PG & PENSIONS,DEPARTMENT OF
PENSIONS & PENSIONER'S WELFARE.
P6 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED
28.09.2020 IN O.P (HMA) 39/2020
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY MINISTRY
OF SHIPPING (PORTS WING) DATED 02.12.2014
R2(B) THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY MINISTRY
OF SHIPPING (PORTS WING) DATED 25.07.2014
